Flores v. The City of New York and National Railroad Passenger Corporation…
Sugely Flores, proposed administratrix of the Estate of the Infant, M.F., deceased, Sugely Flores Individually, Yvelise Beltre, proposed administratrix of the Estate of the Infant, I.M., deceased, Oscar Moronta and Yvelise Beltre individually v. The City of New York and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-05861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 21
Flores v. City of New York: Judge Abrams granted the City summary judgment, rejecting negligence claims after two boys drowned near a bridge.
The ruling disposes of Sugely Flores’s and Yvelise Beltre’s claims, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs, against the City of New York. The plaintiffs’ claims against Amtrak had already been settled, and Oscar Moronta had voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice.
What happened
In Sugely Flores v. The City of New York, the families of two thirteen-year-old boys sued the City and Amtrak after the boys drowned following jumps from a bridge near Inwood Hill Park. The claims against Amtrak had been settled, leaving the City’s request for summary judgment.
The court ruled that the City had no duty to warn about dangers on Amtrak’s bridge or about the river’s readily visible current. It also ruled that the City was not a legal cause of the boys’ deaths. The court granted the City’s motion on the negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and loss-of-services claims.
Judge Ronnie Abrams held that the City’s motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety. The court explained that the plaintiffs had abandoned the negligent hiring and supervision and loss-of-services claims by not opposing the City’s arguments against them.
The detailed version
- Flores v. The City of New York and National Railroad Passenger Corporation… · No. 1:21-cv-05861
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
Two thirteen-year-old boys, I.M. and M.F., went with friends to an undeveloped area of Inwood Hill Park. They reached a beach area along the river, walked onto rocks next to the Spuyten Duyvil Bridge, and then entered the bridge area. I.M. jumped into the river. M.F., who said he could not swim and expressed concern about whether he would make it back, later jumped in. When M.F. struggled, I.M. entered the river to help him. Both boys were swept away by the current and drowned.
The plaintiffs—Sugely Flores, Yvelise Beltre, and Oscar Moronta—asserted negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and loss-of-services claims against the City of New York and National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak. The City owned and maintained the park, while Amtrak exclusively owned and operated the bridge and its fence. Moronta later voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs settled their claims against Amtrak, leaving the City’s motion for summary judgment for decision.
Legal Standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
Negligence
Under New York law, a negligence claim requires proof that the defendant owed a duty, breached that duty, and caused an injury. The court held that the City had no duty to warn about a dangerous condition on Amtrak’s property. The bridge was owned and operated solely by Amtrak, and the record contained no evidence that the City caused or contributed to a condition on the bridge, encouraged visitors to use it, or knew that park visitors were accessing it and jumping from it.
The court also held that the City had no duty to warn about the river or its current. A landowner generally has no duty to warn about natural geographic dangers that are open and obvious to someone reasonably using their senses. The court relied on testimony from D.R., one of the boys’ friends, that the water near the rocks appeared deep and the current appeared strong. D.R. said that she did not enter the water because she believed it was unsafe. The court concluded that the current was not a hidden or latent danger, even though the plaintiffs argued that its strength was not readily apparent.
The court separately held that, even if the City had a duty to warn, the City’s conduct was not a proximate cause of the deaths. Proximate cause means a sufficiently direct and foreseeable connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury. The court found no evidence that the City knew of prior swimming, bridge jumping, or injuries in that area. It concluded that the dangers of jumping from the bridge into the river were apparent and that the boys’ actions, rather than the City’s conduct, were the legal cause of the injuries. The court therefore granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim.
Remaining Claims
The plaintiffs also asserted negligent hiring and supervision and loss-of-services claims against the City. The court stated that the plaintiffs abandoned those claims by failing to oppose the City’s arguments for dismissal. The court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on those claims as well.
Disposition
The court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions pending at ECF Nos. 62 and 65, which concerned Amtrak’s expert and summary-judgment motions and had previously been denied as moot after the settlement.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.